Hostig games by players has to go

[Vanille]

Limiting ping option doesn't work and we know it. It also doesn't stop people with unstable connection to constantly lag spikes once the mission starts, the lovely 1,7k ping jumps and doors not opening with enemies teleporting around. P2P only works on an ideal world where everyone has access to a stable connection so after all, it's all up to DE and if they want/can to invest on dedicated servers.

[johnxd_]

You do know that ping doesn't always depend on the host's internet right?

I live in Australia and pay for one of the best internet connection speeds, but I'm still going to be a S#&$ host if I play with people who are not in Australia. There is nothing I can do because its just how internet works. The further you are away from the host the more ping you get. Ofcourse unless the host lives in Africa with .5MB internet speed then its his problem.

But please dont bash people for ping problems where they can't do anything about it. I can't just move to your country so you can have lower ping. I want to play the game as well.

[(PSN)JustJoshinEnt]

13 hours ago, HeartPurity said:

Or if things cant be fixed at least give us an option to toggle "always host".  

....So everyone can put it to "Always Host" and then noone joins random parties ever because we end up in a "No, you!" situation?  Nah, we're fine as is.  Honest.

[HeartPurity]

3 hours ago, (PS4)Taishin_Ishu said:

....So everyone can put it to "Always Host" and then noone joins random parties ever because we end up in a "No, you!" situation?  Nah, we're fine as is.  Honest.

Do you see the word "an option"? If you don't like it, then don't switch it on, there must be people who don't like it like you, but also there must be people who are like me and welcome this option.

[Gamma745]

15 minutes ago, HeartPurity said:

Do you see the word "an option"? If you don't like it, then don't switch it on, there must be people who don't like it like you, but also there must be people who are like me and welcome this option.

I don't think it's because he doesn't like it. It's just the fact that people would most likely turn it on to avoid the Host Migration issue, therefore everyone would make their own separate sessions and effectively turning everyone into Solo instances. I mean, would you choose to not become the Host and risk Host Migration yourself?

[HeartPurity]

13 minutes ago, Gamma745 said:

I don't think it's because he doesn't like it. It's just the fact that people would most likely turn it on to avoid the Host Migration issue, therefore everyone would make their own separate sessions and effectively turning everyone into Solo instances. I mean, would you choose to not become the Host and risk Host Migration yourself?

read this thread https://forums.warframe.com/topic/992321-an-option-to-always-host-never-host/

There are people who ask for an option to "never host". DE should give players the freedom to choose whether they wanna "always host/ never host" apart from the ping limit that we have now. 

[Gamma745]

1 minute ago, HeartPurity said:

read this thread https://forums.warframe.com/topic/992321-an-option-to-always-host-never-host/

There are people who ask for an option to "never host". DE should give players the freedom to choose whether they wanna "always host/ never host" apart from the ping limit that we have now. 

Not much of a discussion in that thread, and only one says that he would choose "never host". Not exactly a good sample size.

Though it is just pure speculation on what's going to happen. The option could go wonderfully, or it could go turning Warframe into a Solo game.

[HeartPurity]

1 minute ago, Gamma745 said:

Not much of a discussion in that thread, and only one says that he would choose "never host". Not exactly a good sample size.

Though it is just pure speculation on what's going to happen. The option could go wonderfully, or it could go turning Warframe into a Solo game.

Nani? There are 3-4 people who agree on this idea in such a small thread, imagine the big ocean out there. And we are giving suggestions/ feedback to DE, not that we must run extensive research + data mining before voicing our opinion in a game forum. 

[kyori]

You can.... wait, OP didn't follow his own thread anymore. So maybe that means he gave up, so I will not comment further. 

[Gamma745]

1 minute ago, HeartPurity said:

Nani? There are 3-4 people who agree on this idea in such a small thread, imagine the big ocean out there. And we are giving suggestions/ feedback to DE, not that we must run extensive research + data mining before voicing our opinion in a game forum. 

I'm not saying the idea is bad, or that there are only a few people who agreed to it. I'm saying that there's a possibility that the majority of people will choose to "always host", which will make matchmaking really barren.

I'm not really advocating that we have to do major research or survey before we suggest ideas. I'm okay with DE going with an experimental phase of this idea. Give the players to option to Always Host/Never host or not, and see how it goes for a while. If it goes well, the system continues. If it actually went wrong, then the system is pulled. I'm not trying to say that DE should never do it.

[HeartPurity]

4 minutes ago, Gamma745 said:

I'm not saying the idea is bad, or that there are only a few people who agreed to it. I'm saying that there's a possibility that the majority of people will choose to "always host", which will make matchmaking really barren.

I'm not really advocating that we have to do major research or survey before we suggest ideas. I'm okay with DE going with an experimental phase of this idea. Give the players to option to Always Host/Never host or not, and see how it goes for a while. If it goes well, the system continues. If it actually went wrong, then the system is pulled. I'm not trying to say that DE should never do it.

👍

[Gamma745]

Just now, HeartPurity said:

👍

I just hope this means you're aware of the potential problem that could arise.

[HeartPurity]

5 minutes ago, Gamma745 said:

I'm not saying the idea is bad, or that there are only a few people who agreed to it. I'm saying that there's a possibility that the majority of people will choose to "always host", which will make matchmaking really barren.

I'm not really advocating that we have to do major research or survey before we suggest ideas. I'm okay with DE going with an experimental phase of this idea. Give the players to option to Always Host/Never host or not, and see how it goes for a while. If it goes well, the system continues. If it actually went wrong, then the system is pulled. I'm not trying to say that DE should never do it.

or at the very least give us the option to 'never host', then we assume all potato net owners out there are considerate and responsible and will choose to 'never host'. Amen.

[Gamma745]

1 minute ago, HeartPurity said:

or at the very least give us the option to 'never host',

So, three options: Always Host, Never Host, Public.

 

2 minutes ago, HeartPurity said:

then we assume all potato net owners out there are considerate and responsible and will choose to 'never host'. Amen.

I get the feeling that they will actually choose "Always host" or "Solo". They don't want to risk Host Migration themselves, after all.

[Johnny5five]

Is there anyway to implement a sort of network analyzer system that checks the performance of your network connection and if it falls below a certain threshold it turns on the never host option without the ability to turn it back on manually?  Sometimes taking the decision making ability away from the person is best for everyone.  If I had an unreliable network connection I wouldn't be playing games online at all.

 

I can only speak from my own experience on PC but since the host migration issues sanctuary onslaught launched with were patched I haven't had a single one fail.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Johnny5five

[noxtare]

Just change settings so you don't join games with high pings... In a game where the focus lies on speed dedicated servers WILL KILL it. Most of us don't have the highest internet speed so the dedicated servers will only be good for a small 1% and why should they fix something that isn't broken? 

[(PSN)JustJoshinEnt]

1 hour ago, HeartPurity said:

Do you see the word "an option"? If you don't like it, then don't switch it on, there must be people who don't like it like you, but also there must be people who are like me and welcome this option.

Never said I don't like it.  Just saying, if people have an option to be in control, they're going to take it.   Warframe players don't tend to be the type to take the backseat (except leechers).   

[(PSN)JustJoshinEnt]

1 hour ago, Gamma745 said:

I don't think it's because he doesn't like it. It's just the fact that people would most likely turn it on to avoid the Host Migration issue, therefore everyone would make their own separate sessions and effectively turning everyone into Solo instances. I mean, would you choose to not become the Host and risk Host Migration yourself?

Bingo!  Thank you for understanding 🙂

[zNightWolfz]

im in aus and on high speed but the ping often sucks theres not a thing i can do about it

 

[SneakyErvin]

13 hours ago, FashionFrame said:

Alright so lets double 90k to 180k, and then add to those other platforms: ps4, xbox one, and say they also have 180k players. Still not even a million, compared to 36million, that's definitely a fraction of players. Just saying.

You dont have 360k active players, you have 360k concurrent players. That means an avarage of 360k players being online at any given point of the day. In most games you multiply this number by 20 or so to get the actual amount of active players. Lets count low here and you'll still end up with 6.5m active players.

edit: Oh and to the people defending P2P over Dedicated severs. /picardfacepalm

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by SneakyErvin

[Nasrol]

I think how hosting is handled in this game is probably one of the largest source of annoyance to a wide range of players. Unfortunately, it is also an issue I don't think DE have ever really sought to engage with the community on? I think we can all agree we hate lag, so what could DE in theory do to improve it? I suggest edsimilar points in the past, but my solution would be:

1. Have an option where a player has 1 of 2 options to select they can select, "Prefer to host" or "Prefer to not host". When match making kicks in, if more than 1 player has selected "Prefer to host", RNG which player gets to host.
   
   *Or if you want to make the process smart, when someone ticks "Prefer to host" Warframe scores the player's machine based on CPU, RAM and GPU. The player with the "Prefer to host" option ticked that has the highest score hosts the match. Whereas the "Prefer to not host" is an option for players who know their machine / connection is not capable of hosting. It won't be a 100% perfect solution, but it allows players greater control over hosting and would cut down on the bad hosting experiences IMO.
    
2. DE could have a cash shop option (e.g., 300 plat for 28 days) where they can purchase access to an "enhanced group experience", where a DE provided server handles the hosting of all public games. All players who decide to buy that ,then have the option of either selecting to either match make only with other players on that hosted server or choose to use normal matching making (i.e., maybe they want to group with friends who have not purchased it). 

Option 2 would take a little work, but could start as a limited trial option where the first 'x' amount of players to buy that option can use it, so DE can see how well (or badly) it works. There are ways around the problem, unfortunately I don't think it is even on DE's radar as something they want to address. 

Food for thought.

[FashionFrame]

35 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

You dont have 360k active players, you have 360k concurrent players. That means an avarage of 360k players being online at any given point of the day. In most games you multiply this number by 20 or so to get the actual amount of active players. Lets count low here and you'll still end up with 6.5m active players.

edit: Oh and to the people defending P2P over Dedicated severs. /picardfacepalm

 

I'd love to see you actually provide those numbers, because I'm not seeing it. Sometimes we just gotta see proof. 

Also, the whole "defending p2p" you should read some of the comments in previous pages and realize this: we have systems provided to help get the best out of p2p, so use them. Dedicated servers are insane expensive, which is perfectly understandable in DE's perspective, and some of us just see the bigger picture that p2p is just the cheaper, easier method for DE. 

Maybe in the waaaay future there will be servers, but we're not running a giant mmo open world game where thousands are all in the same spot. This is a 4 player game that doesn't really need anything above even 10 players. So that idea of dedicated servers seems like quite the money waster. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by FashionFrame

[(PSN)Elvenbane]

1 hour ago, FashionFrame said:

This is a 4 player game that doesn't really need anything above even 10 players. So that idea of dedicated servers seems like quite the money waster. 

I disagree. Imagine a Warframe where anyone can leave after a bounty, ESO wave, etc. without forcing the rest of the squad to sit through a host migration. Imagine always being able to reliably use abilities like Nova's wormhole when playing public instead of passing right through it due to lag. Dedicated servers would greatly improve the experience and with DE moving towards larger open areas like PoE and Venus I'd certainly welcome it.

[(PSN)Cargan2016]

As been said this problem is mostly your end.  They have option to limit ping of those you connect with.  Also try doing the research on costs before trying to demand de do something.  And the costs go far beyond adding in now 4 sets of servers.  They also would have to get huge increase in bandwidth or the game be so laggy it would be unplayable for everyone.  Look at your own internet bill multiply that by 5 or 6 and probably be close to what cost for sufficient bandwith for 1 server

[(PSN)the-creeperman]

blah blah ping blah techno babble blah blah..

 

I do alot of pugs and I get in laggy games sometimes but it's not a game breaking problem for me. I also think that 4 player squads are fine and manageable, there's no need for larger squads, imo.